Debate Coverage

Debates have changed dramatically over the years. Rules and restrictions have changed as well. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were “true” debates in that the matched candidates were given equal and adequate time to talk about a single topic in order to gain an audience decision on who won. Debates between two matched candidates came to a halt in the early to mid 20^th century due to governmental restrictions on radio and television. News stations could not give extended time to one candidate without offering equal time to each of the other candidates. The history of debates leads to the following question: Should this restriction still be place? Is it best for the nation to allow news stations to broadcast only the candidates that they deem worth covering?

To address this, we must go back through history. While the news restrictions seemed initially good for candidates, the plan backfired because few if any debates were publicly aired. Radio stations did not want to broadcast any debates since they would be forced to provide equal time to little known candidates. Thus, citizens were unable to here any of the candidates debate. Though the restriction was initiated because the government wanted to allow anyone to become a viable candidate, the results did not match the goal. If anything, the lack of any debates only worsened the election system because none of the candidates were debating in a public forum.

Today, this restriction does not apply and networks have a choice of who to broadcast and who not to broadcast. The result? Many more debates take place among candidates. True, some candidates get a significantly smaller amount of time on air, but usually in the beginning of the campaign all candidates are explored. One cannot expect that all candidates will always receive an equal amount of coverage, but that is because the media can be seen as gatekeepers who sort through all of the news events and decide which ones should be publicized.

My conclusion is that democracy is better now because of the ruling that news organizations can decide who to publicize and who not to – simply because more issues and debates get out on the table with this method.

Why does Hillary "mis-speak" instead of lie?

Journalists have the reputation of never leaving any incriminating details out of a story, especially when it comes to politicians. Every bit of dirt is sought after, publicized, and written about in less than glorifying terms – such is the relationship between the journalist and the candidate, where anything and everything is considered newsworthy. Yet, in most instances journalists shy away from the most basic and cutting accusation; one almost never sees in a newspaper a statement that a candidate lied about something. It is heavily implied, but never actually written. Why is this? Why is there a line that political journalists will not cross?

Take, for example, the recent news that Hillary Clinton “misspoke” about her trip to Bosnia in 1996. Clinton, in recalling her trip, said that she had to run inside the airport with her head down through sniper fire. Almost immediately, footage of the visit showed Clinton being greeted outside by ambassadors and children. In addition, every other person on the trip denied any danger at all. Clearly, Clinton lied and fabricated her story about the visit. Journalists covered the story left and right, yet it was merely said that Clinton “misspoke.”

Why is it that the journalists who scathingly write about Clinton other times only strongly implied that Clinton lied without actually saying it? I think it can be tied in to a problem that many candidates have. A political candidate often will leave accusatory comments to outside sources so his or her own reputation will not be sullied. It allows the message to get out yet also keep the candidate removed and seen as above making such comments. This might be the case with journalists. There is something significant about the word “lie” that most people cringe at. When someone is accused of lying, it brings into question his or her character and leads the public to believe that the person is unable to be trusted. Mistrust makes everyone uncomfortable because presuppositions about that person’s character are thrown out the window. When the person is a political candidate, mistrust is almost always a death sentence. The fact that the stakes are so high might be why journalists retreat from calling a politician a liar.

Another reason might be that the public would take such a statement and begin to mistrust the media. Most people already believe that the media is biased toward either conservatives or liberals or that media writes stories for economic gain. All three of these perspectives would only be increased if journalists began writing about lying politicians. It could be more harmful for the candidate for the media to continue talking about Clinton’s mistake in telling her story than to downright call her a liar.

Do Scare Tactics Work in Political Advertising?

Polls say yes, research says sometimes.

As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton approached the Ohio and Texas primaries, their tension was obvious to all spectators. While Obama made last minute speeches, Clinton launched a controversial ad that many have termed a “scare tactic”. It depicted small children snuggled in bed with a telephone ringing in the background. A voiceover explains that it is 3 a.m. and the phone is ringing in the White House. After some tension-building music, the voiceover asks viewers who they would want to answer the phone. The ad was intended to bring back vestiges of 9/11 and scare voters into choosing the more experienced candidate. Though Obama was quick to respond and accuse Clinton of trying to scare up votes, Clinton still won the Ohio and Texas primaries.

The question now remains – was Clinton helped by her scare tactic ad? Do scare tactics work in political advertising? In this election, every delegate counts, so should candidates utilize fear appeal ads or will these strategies eventually backfire? Television advertisements are very common in politics, yet most of them center on denouncing the opposing candidate or building up a candidate’s image. However, there have been several studies on the effectiveness of scare tactics or “fear appeal” ads.

For example, one study by Tony L. Henthorne, Michael S. LaTour and Rajan Nataraajan found that ads with fear appeal arouse more energy and tension in the viewer, which sometimes correlate to action versus ads that do not use fear. They suggest that these results show that advertisers should look into utilizing fear to promote action (Fear Appeals In Print Advertising: An Analysis of Arousal and Ad Response). This is exactly what Clinton seems to be trying to do with her ad. By using a low threshold of fear, which is the level these researchers found to be most effective, Clinton is attempting to gather votes based on the idea that she is the only person capable of keeping the nation safe.

An article by John R. Stuteville discusses three things that must be present for a fear tactic to work: “(1) The feared condition is avoided quickly and almost magically by application of the sponsor's product. (2) There is no psychological investment in not using the product. In such cases fear does not challenge a cherished habit. (3) What is feared is damage to the social image of the self rather than to the physical self” (Psychic Defenses Against High Fear Appeals: A Key Marketing Variable”). Clinton’s ad appears to fulfill the first requirement, as she insinuates that only by electing her would she keep the nation safe. She also appeals to the third requirement, as her ad shows that the safety of children is in question. The safety of children is seen as more important than one’s own safety, thus damage to the social image is being identified. However, Clinton’s ad does not uphold the second prong of the test.

Not enough research exists to make a completely verifiable prediction as to the outcome of Clinton’s fear appeal ad, but it is probably safe to assume that a swell of low involvement voters might have been swayed to her side. History is on Clinton’s side as well, for Lyndon B. Johnson used a scare tactic advertisement, and he won his election by a significant amount. My conclusion is that Clinton was smart to add this strategy to her repertoire of advertising techniques. Her ad contained a low level of fear, which is also considered to be more effective than an ad with a high level of fear (Henthorne).

Obama Girl

This election has been a time of growth and self-questioning. Surprisingly enough, not because of whom I will vote for, but because of whom I will not vote for. I am inexplicably drawn to Barack Obama as a candidate and hope he gets the presidential nomination over Clinton. However, I also know that I will positively not vote for him in November. This has raised a lot of questions about my identity and how Obama has reeled me in almost, but not quite, to the point of giving him my vote.

I am a single, 20 year old, white, conservative female who is from the South. I grew up in a middle to upper class income bracket. When it comes to politics, my sole hope is that McCain picks Huckabee for a running mate. Why is it that I absolutely love Barack Obama when he is a married, older, black, ultra liberal man who targets lower income families and is from the North? Why do I admire him so much more than Clinton, who based on stereotypes is much more like me? Yet, I am not the only young female captivated by Obama’s charm – all one has to do is attend one of his rallies or think back to the summer when the “Obama Girl” video cropped up on YouTube. As I’ve thought this through, I am convinced that it is because of the way Obama has crafted his image.

Image is critical as it represents how people perceive a candidate. Image is all over this particular election as Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama have taken completely different strategies and thus have completely different images. Clinton is the “angry feminist” fighting for a woman’s right to any position in America. She seems politically driven and power oriented to me. In comparison, I see Obama as being passionate and charismatic. While perhaps overly idealistic, he still seems sincere.

Barack also gives the impression that he is an average guy thrust into the political ring. This gives him a “Cinderella” persona that appeals to most Americans. The idea that one can rise above an initial situation is the foundation of the American Dream. Obama captures this through his personal struggles of overcoming drugs and rising in politics. He also has owned up to whatever “scandals” are in his past, which only adds to the perception of him being honest and transparent.

While these things contribute to Obama’s image of a charming man with character, they do not alone capture what makes me attracted to him. The most important tool that Obama uses to create his image is that of inspirational communication.

When Obama speaks, his metaphors and manner of speaking takes you back to the Civil War and to Martin Luther King Jr. Much of this is intentional. For example, in his announcement speech, he alludes to the fact that he is standing in Springfield, Illinois, the home of Lincoln. He quotes both Lincoln and King throughout his address. Even his speaking style is reminiscent of King, for as he draws out his vision of what the government could be like, one is reminded of King’s vision in his “I Have a Dream” speech.

Through his rhetoric, Obama draws you into his dream and invites you to join his movement. He carries himself like a hero from the common people, a fighter. For example, while I am more in line with McCain politically, when he speaks the listener can get the impression that his fight is over. With Obama, he uses rhetoric to convince you that his fight is just beginning.

Therein lies Obama’s power. For who is not swayed by the powerful orations of a leader rallying his people together? We watch Braveheart and 300 to get inspired. Everyone wants to feel significant and part of something that matters. Obama’s passionate appeals make one feel as if a revolution is taking place and he wants you on his side.

This passion is what makes a 20 year old conservative woman almost turn liberal. For while Obama is more liberal than Clinton, I would rather him be president than Clinton. It is ironic that Clinton does not inspire me in the same way, despite the fact that she represents the iconic feminist.

Obviously I am intrigued by Obama. Yet, I refuse to vote for him. This shows that while one can have charm, charisma and an image crafted to perfection, these are not the end-all when it comes to a presidential election – at least not for this young, conservative woman.